"Jefchak works at the New Beverly, which is owned by Quentin Tarantino. A regular at the art-house cinema, Tarantino bought the place in 2007, when it was in danger of closing. The New Beverly still plays traditional reel-to-reel 35mm, and Tarantino has said that the day the cinema puts in a digital projector is the day he burns it to the ground."

there was a interview with him that was posted a few weeks ago
where quentin tarantino said he feels like he is being ripped off
whenever he sees a digital film ...

Pause at 0:22. That just about summarizes the average moviegoers understanding or how much they care about the difference.

And that's the real point no filmmakers seem to address about digital is that it's an evolving TOOL, not a standard. Just like shooting on FILM is a TOOL and? it evolved over the course of 100 years, like every other facet of filmmaking. Adapt or die, as the saying goes.

Adapt or die, as the saying goes.

That final line is the rallying cry of the modern world. *Begin sarcasm and cynicism* "Digital is the best thing since sliced bread. It's new! It's superior! The two technologies can't exist side by side! Analog is old and nasty!!!!!! EEEEWWWW!!!!!" *End sarcasm and cynicism*

Even stupid Cracked Magazine managed to tick me off by implying Kodak never tried to go digital:

The world isn't kind to people who don't keep up with the times. Film and camera maker Kodak just went bankrupt because they couldn't adapt to a world of digital cameras.

Of course, I felt like posting a rebuttal talking about mismanagement, but I knew that most people wouldn't care. It seems like no one cares about preserving their memories on a far more stable medium. That's why I take my most important pictures on film.

Last edited by TexasLangGenius; 04-14-2012 at 02:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Typical digital zombies say: "Adapt or die!" "The world is changing, change with it!" "Analog is old and nasty! EEEEEEEWWWWWW!" "Why should I pay money for getting my pictures when I can have everything NOW?" "Why shoot manual when you can have the camera do everything automatically?"

As someone who works in the film business, I have been growing more and more discouraged by the growing absence of film cameras on film sets, and it was nice to read this article. I liked how the article was a persuasive argument for the qualities of film, particularly the archival qualities of film, instead of taking the more typical stance of siding with new technology.

Yuck, digital movies. You can't even project digital still images with the same resolution as the captured image in the camera, at best you have a poor 1920x1080 projection vs. capture at 5184x3456 (Canon 7D) or 5616x3744 (1DsIII), for example.

Initial Digital Cinema installations were 2K installations, with a resolution of 2048 pixels by 1080 pixels (HDTV's are 1920x1080 or 1280x720).
Sony was the first to introduce 4K systems, which display 4096 pixels by 2160 pixels, and other manufacturers have followed. 4096 pixels across a 75' wide screen?! 54 pixels per foot, 4.5 pixels per inch. Sit close and you see the pixels clearly.

Gimme film projection!!!

Not just Tarantino as a film supporter, Spielberg, too! http://gigaom.com/video/spielberg-se...l-light-kinda/
"SPIELBERG: Eventually I’ll have to shoot [and edit] movies digitally, when the"re is no more film — and I’m willing to accept that. But I will be the last person to shoot and cut on film, y’know?

I went to see Contraband with friends a couple of months ago and we saw it at one of the big multiplexes nearby. Unfortunately, it was being digitally projected and the raster scan lines were visible even seated there quarters of the way back from the screen in the theatre and were glaringly visible whenever the ship was shown diagonally on the screen. This isn't an issue with film because the grains aren't deposited in exactly the same place each frame so you don't get a fixed pattern forming in the image the way the scan lines do or the jagged edges in diagonal or curved lines.

Both of us were really pissed off because after paying some pretty steep admission prices, the theatre ran a ton of ads before the show began including ditching previews entirely to squeeze more ads in, followed by the movie with the low quality digital image. We might as well have saved a lot of money and watched TV at home since that's pretty much what was being shown on the big screen. Since then I haven't bothered seeing movies in theaters except for an independent place nearby, and that theatre's going to suffer if release prints dry up. The last time I was there, the owner told me he's not sure how long he's going to be able to stay in business.

I do recall a technical Oscar I think just this year for the development a film recorder. One thing that studios are learning is the cost of archiving a digital film in digital media is a real costly affair.

I read the PDF file of the Academy's archiving report that was posted earlier, and my experience at work to date with digital archiving pretty well agrees with what the Academy's were. That concerns me.

It's purely a business decision. It's great for Hollywood, but bad for theaters. Just think, no need to make prints of movies. Also, this reduces piracy because this prevents prints from being digitized on the sly. With digital films, it's sent via satellite. All this requires expensive infrastructure paid for by theater owners. I'm sure there will be expensive software and hardware upgrades too. I can watch movies digitally at home, why pay $15 to go to a theater?